alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
39102 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 139 / Friday, July 23, 2021 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Secretary 

List of Countries Requiring 

Cooperation With an International 

Boycott 

In accordance with section 999(a)(3) 

of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 

the Department of the Treasury is 

publishing a current list of countries 

which require or may require 

participation in, or cooperation with, an 

international boycott (within the 

meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986). 

On the basis of the best information 

currently available to the Department of 

the Treasury, the following countries 

require or may require participation in, 

or cooperation with, an international 

boycott (within the meaning of section 

999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 

of 1986). 

Iraq 

Kuwait 

Lebanon 

Libya 

Qatar 

Saudi Arabia 

Syria 

Yemen 

Kevin Nichols, 

International Tax Counsel (Tax Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2021–15675 Filed 7–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–AK–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pablo DAVILA, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 11-40195, 11-40199

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 29, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy J. McCoy, Esq., Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, JOLLY, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In this consolidated appeal, Pablo Davila appeals his sentences for two counts of conspiracy to transport an unlawful alien within the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(A)(v)(I), and (a)(1)(B)(i). He was sentenced to 46 months for each offense with 12 months of the sentence in S.D. Tex. 2:10-CR-945 (5th Cir.11-40195) to run consecutively to the sentence in S.D. Tex. 2:10-CR-943 (5th Cir.11-40199) for a total sentence of 58 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release for each offense. He contends that the district court’s reasons for departing were inadequate and the departure was unreasonable.

Davila’s arguments pertain only to the sentence imposed in S.D. Tex. 2:10-CR-945 (5th Cir.11-40195). That sentence was an upward variance from the Guidelines and not an upward departure within the framework of the Guidelines. *See*U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(c), comment. (n.1(B)); *United States v. Jacobs,*635 F.3d 778, 782 (5th Cir.2011). Davila has failed to show any error, plain or otherwise, in the adequacy of the district court’s reasons for varying from the Guidelines or the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. *See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez,*526 F.3d 804, 806-07 (5th Cir.2008); *United States v. Smith,*440 F.3d 704, 708-10 (5th Cir.2006).

The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                              Accountants' Consent

The Board of Directors
HIE, Inc.

         We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Registration Nos. 33-99034, 333-08295, 333-08293, 333-08287, 333-08283,
333-08279, 333-08271, 333-52165, 333-52155 and 333-52145) on Form S-8 and the
registration statement (Registration No. 333-55703) on Form S-3 of HIE, Inc. of
our reports dated January 26, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of HIE, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows and
related schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December
31, 1998, which reports appear in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form
10-K of HIE, Inc.

                                                     KPMG LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 29, 1999
```

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15432]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-776, OMB Control No. 3235-0730]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Extension:
    Form N-PORT

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously 
approved collection of information discussed below.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form N-PORT under 
the Investment Company Act of 1940.'' Form N-PORT requires funds to 
report portfolio holdings information in a structured, XML format. The 
form is filed electronically using the Commission's electronic filing 
system (Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval or 
``EDGAR''). The purpose of Form N-PORT is to satisfy the filing and 
disclosure requirements of Section 30(b) of the Investment Company Act, 
and of Rule 30b1-9 thereunder.
    We estimate that 11980 entities will be required to submit reports 
on Form N-PORT. We estimate that 35% of funds will file reports on Form 
N-PORT in house and the remaining 65% of funds will retain the services 
of a third party to prepare and file reports on Form N-PORT on the 
fund's behalf. The estimated annual hourly burden associated with Form 
N-PORT 1,839,903 hours for an average of 153.6 hours per entity. The 
total annual internal time cost associated with Form N-PORT is 
$654,658,288. The total annual external cost associated with Form N-
PORT is $113,858,133.
    The requirements of this collection of information are mandatory. 
Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this 
information collection at the following website, www.reginfo.gov. 
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: 
[email protected]; and (ii) David Bottom, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia 
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: 
[email protected]. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 60 days 
of this notice.

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15432 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
#### Paterne BIZABISHAKA, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-60191

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 21, 2009.

Cheri Lynn Attix, Law Office of Cheri Attix, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Ben Franklin Station, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, No-rah Ascoli Schwarz, Justin Constantine, Washington, DC, Kristi Barrows, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Paterne Bizabishaka, a native and citizen of Burundi, petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’s (BIA) order denying his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. In Bizabishaka’s prior proceedings, the BIA primarily rejected his claims for relief based on a finding that the Tutsi dominated government of Burundi was willing to protect him from persecution at the hands of rival ethnic Hutus. Bizabi*825shaka now seeks to reopen his immigration proceedings based on a 2005 change to a Hutu dominated government in Burundi.

The BIA denied the motion to reopen Bizabishaka’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal based on a finding that Bizabishaka had not offered any evidence to corroborate his claims that his father continued to suffer persecution at the hands of the Hutu government. An asylum applicant may be required to provide corroborating evidence where it is reasonable to do so. *Zhao v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir.2005). We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen for failure to provide corroborating evidence. *See Galvez-Vergara v. Gonzales,*484 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir.2007).

However, the record also shows that the BIA failed to address Bizabishaka’s motion to reopen in the context of his claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture. Therefore, this matter must be remanded to the BIA for a determination of this issue in the first instance. *See Eduard v. Ashcroft,*379 F.3d 182, 196 (5th Cir.2004).

Accordingly, Bizabishaka’s petition for review is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This matter is REMANDED to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001030776
<NAME>                        CFP Holdings, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,052
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,086
<ALLOWANCES>                                       269
<INVENTORY>                                     22,601
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,948
<PP&E>                                          49,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,209
<BONDS>                                        115,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,394
<OTHER-SE>                                     (49,276)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,671
<SALES>                                        102,141
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,141
<CGS>                                           97,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   97,012
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,524
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,934)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        82
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14,006)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,006)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Hong Liang Lu, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of UTStarcom Inc. on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in allmaterial respects the financial condition and results of operations ofUTStarcom, Inc.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/   Hong Liang Lu |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Hong Liang  Lu                |
|   | Title: | Chief  Executive Officer      |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to UTStarcom, Inc.and will be retained by UTStarcom, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# C_2020348EN.01002001.xml

| 19.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/20

---

Order of the General Court of 15 July 2020 — Koopman International v EUIPO — Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products (Fluid Distribution Equipment)

(Case T-841/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing fluid distribution equipment - Suspension of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 348/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by G. van den Bergh and B. Brouwer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by A. Odle, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the provisional decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 September 2019 (Case R 1009/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International, on the one hand, and Tinnus Enterprises, on the other hand.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Koopman International BV shall pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Tinnus Enterprises LLC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Koopman International BV shall pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Tinnus Enterprises LLC.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
#### Thomas RITTER; Sally Ritter, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A.; Morgan Chase Bank Home Lending, Defendants-Appellees, and Security Financial Corporation; Michael G. Kenny and Associates, Defendants.

No. 11-1183.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 21, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

*144Thomas Ritter; Sally Ritter, Appellants Pro Se. Diana Margeaux Witherspoon, Miles & Stockbridge, McLean, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas and Sally Ritter seek to appeal the district court’s order dismissing, with prejudice, their amended complaint against some but not all defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order that the Ritters seek to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Harold Lopez, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (De Lury, J.), rendered May 21, 1981, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a deadly weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal trespass, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. '

Judgment affirmed.

*681The majority of defendant’s contentions were addressed in the decision affirming the conviction of his codefendant *(see, People v Ponton,*90 AD2d 799) and are no more compelling on the instant appeal.

Defendant’s remaining contentions have been considered and have been found to be without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# C_2020230EN.01003201.xml

| 13.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES)

(Case T-333/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES - Earlier EU word mark GNC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 230/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Christos Ntolas (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: C. Renger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Rijsdijk, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2019 (Case R 1343/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between General Nutrition Investment and Mr Ntolas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Christos Ntolas to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by General Nutrition Investment Co. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Christos Ntolas to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by General Nutrition Investment Co.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
Amounts inapplicable or not disclosed as a separate line on the Statement of
Financial Position or Results of Operations are reported as 0 herein.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                 1,659
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                          5,134
<ALLOWANCES>                             853
<INVENTORY>                            5,651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      12,116
<PP&E>                                 9,492
<DEPRECIATION>                        (6,009)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        19,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  7,779
<BONDS>                                2,785
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 28,844
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                  10
<OTHER-SE>                           (20,325)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          19,316
<SALES>                               13,601
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      15,588
<CGS>                                  8,110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          9,487
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         158
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       511
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (2,678)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (2,678)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                301
<NET-INCOME>                          (2,979)
<EPS-BASIC>                             (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.41)


</TABLE>
#### Henry H. Kryger *vs.*Railway Track Cleaner Manufacturing Company.

July 7, 1891.

Action for *Services*— Evidence.—Held, that the verdict in this action was justified by the evidence.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, *Smith,*J., presiding, refusing a new trial after verdict of $500 for plaintiff.

*Welch, Botkin é Welch,*for appellant.

*Loran C. Stevenson*and *Rome G. Brown,*for respondent.

Collins, J.

Action to recover for services rendered the defendant corporation by plaintiff, in the capacity of its general manager. *501The plaintiff had a verdict, and the appeal, which is devoid of merit, is from an order refusing a new trial. The by-laws specified the duties of the general manager in very broad language, by stating that he “shall have general charge of the management, practically, of the affairs of the company relative to caring for the property, * * * and his management shall be general so far as the same is necessary in regard to the working' and operations of the company; but the said manager shall be at all times subject to the authority and control of the board of directors,” etc. This board consisted of all of the stockholders, four in number, the plaintiff being one. The testimony tended to show that, with the consent of the board, the plaintiff made two trips to an eastern city in the interests of the corporation. A part, at least, of the services rendered there by.hinrwere clearly within his duties as defined in the by-laws, and as to other services for which he claimed compensation the court charged the jury that he could not recover. It was also made to appear that, during the period of time set out in the complaint, plaintiff had made a model of the machine which the corporation was organized to manufacture, and was also at work upon improvements on the machine itself, all of which was strictly within the line of his duty. There was also testimony which tended to show that the acts and services of the plaintiff for which he demanded pay were, subsequently to their performance and rendition, ratified and adopted by the stockholders and directors. There was an abundance of testimony in support of the verdict, and, from the clear charge of the court, it is very evident that the issues were well understood and passed upon by the jurors.

Order affirmed.